Sunday, September 04, 2016

BioRxIv: Zika Virus Replication In Culex Quinquefasciatus In Brazil

Credit Wikipedia

#11,703

As we've seen many times, it is not all that unusual to see conflicting results from similar scientific studies conducted by reputable research teams.

Just last month, in When Flu Vaccine Studies Collide,we looked at widely differing assessments on the effectiveness of the nasal spray (LAIV) flu vaccine from here in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

On another front, over the past six months we've seen conflicting reports over whether non-Aedes mosquitoes - like the common house (Culex) mosquito - can transmit the Zika virus.

But that announcement also stated they had detected naturally infected Culex mosquitoes in the wild and that experimentally infected C. mosquitoes replicated the virus nearly as well as does the Aedes aegypti.

While the prospect of Culex mosquitoes as competent vectors for Zika appeared to be dimming, scientists never like to say `never'.

Particularly when they continue to see conflicting research.

Which brings us to the early publication (h/t @MackayIM) of the study referenced in the July press release from FIOCRUZ - that while not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal - has been offered as a preview on the BioRxiv (Bio Archive)site.

As to what explains the difference in their findings, there are a lot of possibilities, including differences in methods. But one possibility:
There are hundreds of anthropophilic mosquito species around the world, including dozens ofvarieties of Culex. It is conceivable that what is true for one variety, in one region of the world, may not hold true for all of them.

As much as we'd like quick and definitive answers, science is often messy, progress is made in fits and starts, and `Eureka!’
moments of sudden clarity are exceedingly rare.

Which means we'll have to wait for more data before we can say with any confidence what role (if any) non-Aedes mosquitoes play in the spread of Zika.